THE SOCIOLOGY OF PREJUDICE: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS * HENRY LEE ALLEN * Assistant Professor of Education University of Rochester As the United States becomes a nation characterized by even more ethnic and cultural diversity in the 1990s, the pernicious consequences of prejudice have once again intruded vividly into public awareness. The mass media have shown recently, via coverage of repugnant incidents, that the United States has been deluded in assuming that the problems of prejudice had been resolved during the Civil Rights era. Senseless murders, racist brutality, inhumane epithets, entrenched segregation, and invidious stereotypes have combined exponentially to reiterate the legacy of prejudice in our society. From the ivory towers of our finest colleges and universities to the dingiest, most heinous ghetto streets, the permutations of prejudice continue to perplex or engulf the country. Some excuse prejudice as natural behavior, thereby denying that they can choose among the many constructive or positive ways to treat human beings who differ in physical or social appearance. Others explain prejudice on the basis of what they have learned from others, denying that they are culpable for naively going along with the moral inepitudes of the crowd. A third group claims that prejudice results from conformity to the external pressures of the biased 1 masses, thereby abrogating the timeless ethical imperatives of individual conscience. Whatever the excuse given, the complications of prejudice remain unresolved and are continually reproduced in succeeding generations. Tragically, the vast majority of our churches offer no realistic alternative to the moral quagmire of prejudice. Many social commentators have noted that the organized church is among the most segregated collectivities in the nation. Racial tensions are allowed to fester in some churches until they erupt catastrophically like a volcano, spewing the lava of antagonism and divisiveness among those supposedly committed to a mandate of love and ethic of humble service. Churches abandon certain neighborhoods like cowards as soon as they allow themselves to be immobilized by xenophobia or when the problems of coping with the complexities of diversity arise. Instead of demonstrating how the gospel can transform human beings beyond earthly ideologies, many believers prefer the proclamation of Christ's reconciliation over its incarnation in the relationships among diverse believers. Life does not have to be this way for those who are willing to understand the sociology of prejudice. The aim of this essay therefore is to identify the origins of prejudice, deduce its impact upon relationships in the church, and provide solutions which will give victory to those who sincerely desire to overcome prejudicial tendencies. To avoid the debilitating legacy of prejudice, 2 believers must view all humans, regardless of the way they look or behave, as persons made in the image of God. We must realize furthermore that we are accountable to Christ for every prejudicial thought, word, attitude, and action. The Apostles Peter (in Acts 10) and James (in James 2) clearly teach that there is an alternative choice to prejudice. This essay will draw upon insights from the Bible and modern sociological knowledge to indicate practical ways of living up to Christ's standards. The Origins of Prejudice Scholars, as might be expected, disagree over the origins of prejudice. Thus, they also quibble over how the notion of prejudice is defined. For those adhering to the tenets of sociobiology, a school of thought that explains human behavior on the basis of biological traits or processes, prejudice is the natural response of mating groups who seek to protect their offspring from contamination by those with deficient genes. Hence, prejudice is a survival mechanism endemic to the evolutionary process. A milder version of the sociobiological argument argues that prejudice is a primordial instinct whereby people will inevitably choose under every conceivable condition to associate only with those who look like them physically or behave like them psychologically. This position is epitomized in the popular notion that "birds of a feather flock together." Consequently, people who view prejudice as 3 a primordial instinct assume that segregation and ethnic strife are outcomes predetermined by group solidarity. Surprisingly, many believers also endorse the idea that prejudice is natural, although they fail to recognize the ultimate source of their ideas. The belief that prejudice is a natural phenomenon is also reflected in racist ideologies sanctioning white supremacy. Groups, like the Klu Klux Klan, skinheads, and Aryan nations, often attempt to masquerade this notion using simplistic propaganda, elaborate rituals, or jingoistic symbols. The most destructive example of the extremist implications of this token belief in the twentieth century was in Nazi Germany where a systematic policy of racial prejudice was institutionalized for the entire world to behold. Ironically, these Nazi beliefs emanated from religious sources, occultist in origin, as demonstrated by a recent television documentary sponsored by the Public Broadcasting Service. Very few experts in the sociology of prejudice would endorse these viewpoints because of rigorous historical and empirical evidence which falsifies these ideas. Michael Banton, a world-renowned historian of race relations, has written many books which prove that the racial ideas which lead to modern prejudice are correlated with the rejection of the biblical idea about five hundred years ago in Western civilization that all humans descended from common parents: Adam and Eve. During the sixteenth century, the idea of 4 race was used sparingly and referred originally to kinship differences or lineage. As people began to assume that people with different physical features such as skin color, hair texture, or skull sizes could not possibly have come from the same ancestors, they substituted the idea that people came from several distinct ancestors. Assuming this to be true, experts concluded that the behavioral differences they observed between people with different physical traits were the result of the bloodlines inherited from distinct progenitors. Many current stereotypes originated during this epoch. Essentially, positive character traits were given to those European groups which were wealthy, prestigious, or powerful while negative character qualities were ascribed in descending order to those groups whose physical features were sharply contrasted with the favored Europeans who made the original arbitrary distinctions. Those ethnic peoples like Africans or Native Americans whose physical or cultural traits were least appreciated by the classifiers became stereotyped as lazy, dumb, or immoral based upon the lackluster thinking or distorted information produced by prejudiced minds. Fueled by the perennial ignorance of the peasant masses and the lack of a sustained refutation by the dominant thinkers of the era, a maladaptive view of ethnicity, initiated by prejudice, became socialized in families and was passed along from generation to generation until it found credence among people so disposed today. 5 Unfortunately, the vast majority of religious, economic, political, civic, and educational leaders of the United States have, during most of this nation's history, subscribed to this aberrant legacy of prejudice. Through injustice, innuendo, caprice, malice, compromise, and benign neglect, these guardians of the social order have sown a crop of racism among the populace, not realizing that they and their posterity would reap a whirlwind of unnecessary strife, violence, and ignominy. The enduring consequences of this colonialist heritage are profoundly documented by the best scholars of race and ethnic relations (Feagin 1984). To what extent then can one conclude from this historical synopsis that the prejudice manifested during this era was natural? This evolving legacy of prejudice seemed at the time to explain the reality people commonly observed as powerful European nations engaged in slavery and colonialism across the globe, rendering their victims helpless and castrated from making positive accomplishments in their own ethnic civilizations. Nevertheless, Frank M. Snowden, a scholar of antiquity, convincingly argues that modern racial prejudice as we know it did not exist at all prior to this colonial era (Snowden 1983). That is to say that there was very little contact among diverse ethnic groups in ancient societies due to limitations in travel and communication. Furthermore, whatever contact that took place was not xenophobic but based upon diplomatic or trade 6 negotiations since each group controlled goods and territory outside the jurisdiction of the other. Obviously, encounters between peoples with extreme differences in physical features caused some surprise and possibly apprehension; yet, Snowden finds no evidence-prior to colonialism-that these were hostile or fraught with ethnocentric caricatures. Banton elsewhere elaborates that the geneticist Mendel provided ideas which falsify the notion that prejudice is a natural defense mechanism for various races. Mendel observed that populations with the same physical appearance could have distinct genetic origins and that populations with the same genetic origins can vary significantly in their physical features. This discovery means that ethnic groups that look alike may be unrelated while those who appear to look differently may be related by blood. Consequently, there is no credible, objective basis for grouping people as whites, blacks, browns, reds, and yellows according to variations in skin color. Through the migration and diffusion of tribes across time and space, many of the physical features of human populations have been inextricably confounded. Prejudice seems to be based on a pecking order decided by imperial fiat and intuitive reaction. Moreover, modern scholars like James Van Der Zanden estimate that humans vary significantly in approximately five percent of their total attributes, leaving 7 compatibility in the remaining ninety-five percent of their traits. To attempt therefore to demarcate peoples along a continuum into permanent categories according to the disproportionately modest variation in these limited physical features is to engage in a ridiculous logical fallacy. Technically, it is always possible (and often true) that the variance between members within an arbitrary category is far greater than that between members in separate categories. In short, members of distinct ethnic groups may have more in common-in terms of personality, aspirations, abilities, and desires-with members of other groupings than they do with those in their own. Practically speaking, we observe this anomaly whenever we encounter someone who does not fit our ethnic labels such as Euro-Americans who favor African-American, Native American, or Asian-American culture, music, or cuisine to that bequeathed to them via their socialization (and vice versa). How then can the categories inculcated by the prejudiced mind be anything other than subjective and artificial? Banton shows conclusively that negative stereotypes and the racist beliefs which undergird prejudice go hand in hand. Of course, this prejudice may be rationalized in evolving ways across the ages; nonetheless, whether ascribed to physical traits, cultural tendencies, behavior cues, class affiliations, or some other external indicator-the roots of prejudice lie in the heresy of secularism. One can 8 not deny the historical fact that prejudice is derived from an arbitrary, malicious categorization of people based merely upon observable differences in a selected number of physical traits. Since there is no universal standard by which humans can compare their physical, cultural, or behavioral attributes in order to denote degrees of perfection, all racial prejudice effectively judges a person for having unchangeable attributes that they are ultimately not responsible for and implicitly denies that humans are made in the image of God. The essence of prejudice therefore is, in my opinion, a pathological pride. It may be nurtured in ignorance, xenophobia, and other distortions of self, but it seems impossible to be prejudiced against someone whom you do not measure against anyone else, especially yourself or one you aspire to love or imitate. Indeed, some unknown author has defined friendship as "the loving acceptance of another's uniqueness." The Bible and the Sociology of Prejudice Biblical injunctions against prejudice are consistent with the aforementioned evidence too. The common ancestry of all humans is verified in the Old Testament canon within the creation narrative and reiterated in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul before Greek intellectuals during an evangelistic sermon in Acts 17. Moreover, the emphasis in the Book of Genesis-even in the Table of Nations-is on the lineage, not physical features, of the characters 9 identified. Whereas differences in heritage or nationality are noted, as in the case of the Hebrews and the Egyptians in Genesis, these are not correlated to moral character or predetermined behavior. There is no credible evidence that prejudice as we know it in our era was built into the very creation of human beings. In the Old Testament, Jehovah distinguished people according to their covenantal status with him, rather than by ethnic category. Race was more of a moral than racial category. Old Testament law recognized the rights of aliens who by faith had become incorporated into Israel. Rahab and Ruth are prominent examples of aliens who were absorbed into the nation of Israel. Moreover, God punished abuses directly against aliens under the covenant (Deuteronomy 10:17-19; 24:14-18; 27:19). Even as God allowed Israel to conquer those nations under his divine judgment for their wickedness, He never cited prejudice as the rationale! As God told Samuel during David's anointment, His divine standard always supersedes human preferences for outward appearances (1 Samuel 16:7). On those occasions where prejudice was directed against Israel, God punished the antagonists severely. The Book of Esther graphically describes the morbid fate of Haman whose vehement prejudice against Mordecai and the Jews was categorical in nature. During the Babylonian captivity, God intervened miraculously to protect Daniel and his friends from the prejudices of their captors. The bulk of the 10 prophetic writings contain judgments against those nations that were prejudiced against Israel. Only the prophet Jonah stands as a paltry example-for all ages-of a godly person who prejudice was so ridiculously categorical that he could not celebrate Jehovah's impartial love and mercy toward the inhabitants of Nineveh. In the New Testament, prejudice is identified as a spiritual problem. The Lord Jesus Christ used His parable about the Good Samaritan to prove that the moral demands of divine love between neighbors inevitably undermine ethnic prejudices (Luke 10:25-37). Christ's enemies were often guilty of prejudice (John 7:1-24), allowing His appearance to distract them from understanding His person, character and holiness. Peter had to conquer his prejudice in order to become the leader of the church in Acts 10, as Christ's plan of salvation was extended to the Gentiles. Peter recognized via divine revelation that God does not engage in human prejudice but acknowledges anyone from any nation or ethnicity who will trust and obey Him (Acts 10:34-35). Paul later reprimanded the Corinthian church for its prejudice based in the temporal values of human carnality (1 Corinthians 1-3) instead of the superordinate reality of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:11-21). Paul seems to locate the ultimate source of prejudice in the spiritual realm (Ephesians 6:12). The Book of James contrasts the impartiality and tolerance typical of God's wisdom with the selfish 11 intolerance of worldly, human wisdom (James 3:13-18). Elsewhere, the Apostle James indicates unequivocally that prejudice violates God's moral law to love one's neighbor as oneself (James 2:1-14). He demonstrates practically that all prejudice, judging another by outward appearances or on the basis of created features they are not responsible for, is sin! Prejudice is sin because it misses the mark of God's divine standard of impartial love. James reminds us that we can not please God by blessing and cursing our neighbor from the same mouth. In short, the pure hearts which are characteristic of redeemed humanity must exemplify an impartial ethic for speech and behavior in interpersonal relations. The Apostle John connects our salvation with a love for our neighbors which is free from the ravages of prejudice (1 John 3:11-20). Indeed, John seems to imply that the love of God can not be present in a person too prejudiced to help a needy brother or sister (1 John 3:15). Prejudice is a spiritual malady which blinds one from seeing and meeting the genuine needs of others since it fosters a categorical hatred or suspicion of those who look or behave differently from us. Finally, the New Testament intimates that prejudice is at variance with the will of God as expressed in the panorama of believers from all nations depicted in the Book of Revelation (Revelation 5:9-10). It is inconceivable that Christ would permit prejudice to poison the sanctity of His redeemed community of peoples. 12 Prejudice therefore is a phenomena attributed to this ungodly world and to those who are incapable of rejecting its dictates. Genuine, orthodox Christian faith has never sanctioned prejudice based upon human whims and categorical judgments. Unfortunately, for those of us who live in the modern era, the dominant segment of the institutionalized Church in Western civilization has abrogated God's timeless admonitions against prejudice through the ages. The biblical standard against prejudice described above has been surrendered repeatedly on the altar of secularism. First, God's standard became attenuated through European ethnocentrism, as European nations inculcated mistakenly the notion that they were God's chosen people to the extent that Christianity was concentrated among their populace. An insidious, cultural Christianity based upon ethnic dominance was thereby confounded with and substituted for authentic faith. Never mind the fact that through colonialism powerful societies conquered those who were militarily weaker than they were in contrast to God's divine pattern for Israel. Never mind that Israel's mission was given credence by supernatural displays of God's power against overwhelming natural odds while colonial forays were nurtured in avarice and deception. Never mind that the Bible teaches one to forgive those who offend you, a mandate that applies to ethnic as well as interpersonal strife. Never mind that Christ mandates that the stronger serve the needs of the 13 weaker. Never mind the tangible evidence of supernatural living that manifests itself by giving to one's enemies the food or drink they require for sustenance rather than indulging your territorial fantasies, especially in their own territory. Most Europeans foolishly deluded themselves via socialization and ideology into thinking that cultural symbols, ethnic kinship, and public rituals give greater evidence of Christian faith than supernatural character and love towards others. Over time, European progeny promiscuously adopted a colonialist Christianity, a bastardized version of orthodox faith and practice. Through this impostor, racism, genocide, discrimination, theft, immorality, and prejudice have been passed brutally across the globe to other nations. This is the aberrant legacy of those who claimed membership in those segments of the Western Church that have historically rationalized prejudice and racism. Since Christ promised to deal severely with those who offended His least ones, the prophets, priests, and pundits who have promoted prejudice within His Church have much to answer for! Secondly, because the Church has slothfully abandoned a biblical view of human origins, ensuing generations have assimilated secular notions of prejudice in accord with the shifting conceptions identified in the previous section of this essay. Those who have identified themselves as Christians throughout modern history have justified the most 14 abhorrent versions of slavery, racism, and injustice (Jordan 1974). Many so-called evangelical or fundamentalist believers in our time have become purveyors of the filth of prejudice, insulting God's heritage-as in South Africa-by arguing via precept or example that prejudice is natural and inevitable! As we have clearly seen thus far, prejudice is a moral choice! Woe unto those who call evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20). Together with my comments about the sociological origins of prejudice from the prior section, I have unveiled several moral dimensions implicit within the sociology of prejudice today. We must always remember that the church in Western civilization has missed a golden opportunity to proclaim Christ to those who have been victims of racial injustice. Many potential converts have stumbled over this heritage of prejudice only to become captivated by secular philosophies or religious alternatives. Notwithstanding those few exceptional believers who fought against the onslaught of prejudice in the West, the church has paid a terrible price for its lethargy. The Impact of Prejudice This legacy of prejudice has had many serious ramifications for church and society. Most fundamental has been the damage done to the self-images of persons who evaluate themselves based on their physical differences with others. For those favored by the popular pecking-order of prejudice, an unjustified pride in physical features they 15 are not responsible for may accrue. In our culture, this is epitomized in the connotations associated with being "white." The concept "white" rarely refers to the actual color of a European-American's skin (which may vary in shades from pale to dark), but rather it indicates that one belongs to the socially favored group-irrespective of documented ethnic antipathies between groups included in this artificial aggregate. The term derives its ideological relevance from defining the boundaries of social intimacy, thereby delimiting the contrasting physical traits characteristic of other groups. In response to this, minority groups have created their rejoinders, escalating a vicious cycle of psychological pathology that has led to the modern mania. How can one revere a supposedly loving god who has created some inferior to other similar beings based merely upon superficial differences in physique? In effect, the questioner wonders why his or her ethnicity is not as sacred as the one atop society's imaginary pedestal. This is the patently false, though inconspicuous, issue propagated by prejudice directed against minorities-those with physical attributes that the pecking order does not favor. For African-Americans, the question presumes a denigration of the melanin which darkens their skin. For Asian-Americans, the question could unwittingly predispose one to reject the shape of her eyes. For Hispanic-Americans, the question implies that their language and culture are deviant, 16 unworthy of tacit acceptance in public discourse. All in all, no human made in God's image should even have to consider such heresy; yet, this permutation has produced stigmas and stereotypes which disparage the unique image and potential God has given to each person, regardless of his or her ethnicity, even today. The distorted self-image that has been warped by prejudice imprisons persons in church and society, especially those whose identities and desires are at variance with those expected for members of their ethnic category. Segregation is the visible, spatial manifestation of this spiritual impairment. Fearing the exposure that one might have more in common as a human being with someone who looks and behaves in a totally different manner from oneself than one has with kith and kin is too bewildering and profound to admit for those with damaged self-esteem. Such xenophobia robs the prejudiced person of precisely those supernatural encounters engineered by Christ but designed to promote love and godliness. Prejudice impregnates segregation by endorsing rigid, frustrated, and dilapidated liaisons between unique groups or individuals. Another ramification of prejudice has to do with social inequality. Favored ethnic groups excuse the abuses of their ancestors, even though these continue to have devastating consequences on the descendants of the offended today. Favored ethnic groups expect forgiveness without restitution, reconciliation without justice, friendship 17 without service, charity without sacrifice. Favored ethnic groups are often blinded to the mockery of their own morality, especially when they become reprobate in dealing with those made unfortunate by the policies and practices of their sinful forbears. Forgotten indeed are the vitriolic comments Christ made in Matthew 23 to the Pharisees who expressed similar sentiments about their injustices. Prejudice, insensitivity, and guilt have been woven together in a tapestry of benign neglect for many who view their ethnicity as superior to others. Ethnic groups having superior wealth, power, prestige, and opportunities can be deceived by secularism into ignoring their commensurate accountability. In Christ's kingdom, the greater one's resources, the greater one's accountability for service in using those resources with the compassion, love, and wisdom exemplified by Christ Himself. That is to say that one is obligated morally via repentance to rectify the injustices that one can observe under one's personal jurisdiction (Proverbs 3:27). When this is not done, as in the case of prejudice, the negative consequences proliferate exponentially. Like cancer, such deterioration does not occur all at once; but when it does occur-if left untreated-it is usually fatal for the victim! Perhaps, this is the peril facing the nation. Prejudice endangers the welfare of the prominent as well as the pauper, the idolized as well as the vilified groups. Unfortunately, advantaged groups have tended 18 sociologically to allow complacency, mediocrity, and chauvinism to obscure the need for concerted action in resolving prejudice. Jesus Christ warned his disciples about prematurely assuming that a demon had been exorcised from a patient only to find out after a while that the demon had returned with much more powerful allies (Luke 11:24-26). Aghast, what ghoulish intergenerational consequences accrue to those who sanction prejudice by inaction! Meanwhile, oppressed ethnic groups grapple disproportionately with fatalism and neglect. Because of their incipient prejudice against those groups favored on the ethnic totem pole, many minorities are sometimes stifled by envy or jealousy. They may fail to discover, develop, and creatively use the latent resources God has given to them to counteract their oppressive circumstances. They may be intimidated from effectively organizing themselves, marshaling their resources efficiently, and diagnosing the inherent weaknesses of their ethnic competitors. The upshot of all this is a tremendous reservoir of wasted talent and potential within many minority communities. This depletion drains the means by which the group might rectify much of its inequality. Again, the delusions of prejudice entrap victims like the mythological snakes of Medusa. Regrettably, as a sociologist I have seen the lethal consequences of prejudice corrode unsuspecting lives over and over again, within the most devout churches, the best of our Christian colleges, and among various cities (Allen 19 1985). Multitudes have capitulated to overt or subtle aspects of prejudice, whether among weak or strong, in homogeneous or heterogeneous settings. Across the last four decades, I have rarely seen victors either in sophisticated or uncouth social circles, regardless of the wealth, power, and prestige of communities. It is mind-boggling to think of what this country might have become had it avoided the plague of prejudice; how friendships, families, fortunes, and fun have been siphoned into oblivion by this parasite! Contrary to popular optimism, I do not think that the scourge of prejudice has been eliminated by the facile policies of the last forty years. Contrary to popular pessimism, I have discovered that the intellectual capacity to drastically curtail prejudice has been available. The problem has been that a mismatch exists between the will of the masses in a democratic order and the tangible sacrifices required to parlay prejudice. Each generation must confront the sinister vicissitudes of prejudice on its own merits. When it comes to prejudice however, fantasy is often preferable to fervency. The most disturbing observation I have made during the course of my life is that, for the most part, church leaders have ignored systematically this legacy of prejudice. Instead, many have opted to watch as their congregations change in cyclical fashion from homogeneity to heterogeneity to resegregation. As outcast groups enter the church in more prolific numbers, panic typically ensues until the 20 original cast abandons ship-ostensibly over internecine conflicts over music, memories, or money. Sermons and lessons, whether Reformed or evangelical, neglect the topic of prejudice. Few church leaders and parishioners have had the competence or integrity to ameliorate the complexities and subtleties of ethnic strife. The irresistible urge has been therefore to acquiesce to the vices of prejudice by escape to calmer horizons. This allows the problems to reappear elsewhere or at a later period of time, a response in severe violation of what the Apostle Paul advised an ethnically diverse congregation to do (Romans 12:9-21). Solutions to Prejudice Resolving the hideous legacy of prejudice will not be an easy, painless, or immediate venture for church or society. Such a plan would require a diligent, tenacious, and multi-faceted effort akin in society to that devoted to the Marshall Plan which rebuilt Europe after the ravages of World War II or the Space Program during the decade of the 1960s. At the very least, one must conceptualize and enforce an array of creative incentives and rigorous sanctions. Education, in and of itself, is not the solution- since people can reject the most credible evidence and ignore the most cathartic ideas. Hence, I suggest that solutions reinforce themselves at the individual, familial, network, organizational, and national level as concurrently as possible. The first step is to foster healthy personal or ethnic 21 identities. Persons must at a minimum be conversant with the most sophisticated ideas and techniques in intergroup relations, exercise these under structures of accountability, and develop verifiable competencies pursuant to promotion or tenure when applicable, wherever the activities of socialization, education, communication, and evaluation take place. We must insist that those who lead large segments of the populace excel in the virtues of tolerance, impartiality, empathy, or wisdom; and that they have proven skills for resolving complicated ethnic conflicts. This standard is so far from being met in our society and church that admittedly it seems somewhat preposterous. However, the demographics of the population portend increasing ethnic diversity in ensuing decades. The clock can not be turned back. Even major corporations are slowly recognizing the need for productive employees who can satisfactorily reconcile ethnic antagonisms. Would that the church and its schools would seize the opportunity to be in the vanguard of this movement, especially given biblical mandates against prejudice. We have been given another golden chance in our generation to remedy the mistakes of previous generations. We could organize conferences, sponsor workshops, develop training sessions, and establish information networks to promote the lofty ideals of a biblical view of ethnicity. We could establish curricula, set course requirements, design testing procedures, publish reading materials, and codify ethical 22 guidelines for success. We could finance foundations which fund projects aimed at reducing prejudice. We could create television or radio programs which prompt reconciliation. We could strive to be the expert professionals called upon for solutions to ethnic conflicts: sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, journalists, pastors, politicians, and lawyers. We could do all of this without diluting the gospel, because this is the gospel when expressed to its fullest capacity! We must diffuse a new standard of ethnicity through precept and example as well as adapt our families, schools, churches, and society to it. Only then can we hope to convince unbelievers that social policies should be changed because we have found and demonstrated a more effective way. Even the most distinguished secular scholars have recognized the need for more universalistic standards and measures of ethnic conduct, character, and performance as a prelude to eliminating discrimination (Banton 1983; Beeghly 1989; Blalock 1967, 1979, 1989; Farley and Allen 1987; Wilson 1987). We must seize the moment to live up to the true legacy of our spiritual heritage. Beyond the first step and its implications, friendship networks, churches, and organizations must be restructured to model conditions antithetical to prejudice. Other colleagues and I have written elsewhere about the rudiments of this process for Christian colleges (Allen 1985). In essence, one must strive at every opportunity given to 23 integrate diverse persons and experiences into one's repertoire of intimate acquaintances and organizational activities. A diverse circle of close friends will probably expose one's obvious and hidden prejudices. Moreover, it provides a milieu in which one can ventilate the most outlandish remarks in an atmosphere conducive to correction and instruction. If chosen to be as representative as possible of various locales, generations, genders, cultures and social classes, one's friends would likely be more receptive to analyzing the strengths and weaknesses, secrets and contributions, customs and boundaries of one's ethnic group than anyone else with whom one is liable to interact. These friends can tutor, mentor and sponsor our confrontations with their communities or traditions. Down through the years, my circle of friends has been an invaluable social resource. Combined with establishing an integrated network of acquaintances, one must pursue equitable institutional policies at school, church, volunteer organizations, private clubs, work and the political arena. Not only must these associations promote equal access relative to their respective jurisdictions, but they must provide the opportunities, mentorship, tutelage, and sponsorship necessary to nurture merit for new ethnic recruits. Few entities live up to this challenge because they assume that their incumbents have no problems with prejudice. Outcast groups are usually recruited on a token basis and given 24 minimal assistance in negotiating the informalities instrumental to success within a particular organizational context. More often than not the policies being rigidly enforced during their initial tenure were the same ones that inhibited them before they entered the organization. Flexibility in adopting new procedures or modifying old ones is a rare resource indeed for many recalcitrant institutions. And then, the most prejudiced simpletons have the audacity to wonder why initiates prefer to socialize elsewhere! A transitional era, whereby the arithmetic mean competencies of all organizational participants are expected to rise, should be anticipated by authorities. During this interim, ethnic leadership should be cultivated and nurtured as soon as possible, according to the standards cited above. Such leadership should serve as role models and gatekeepers for all liaisons. The specifics for accomplishing every aspect of this innovative process are very complicated sociologically, owing to the formidable obstacles involved in eradicating prejudice. The interested reader can consult about these matters with a competent professional or request more details pertinent to his or her situation. Nonetheless, with visionary foresight, diagnostic research, effective planning, constructive social organization, proactive policies, sustained evaluation, careful monitoring, and appropriate follow-up, viable alternatives to prejudice can be implemented. 25 Thirdly, prejudice must be refuted vociferously in public and private discourse (vanDijk 1987). What we say affects what we think and vice versa. Often in the public media people make sensational statements steeped in prejudice. These stereotypic jibes usually commit the logical fallacy of confounding correlational statements with causal statements. What this means abstractly is that just because two phenomena appear at approximately the same time, it does not mean that one caused the other. Scientists recognize three stringent criteria for causality: (1) the cause of an event must precede its effect, (2) the cause of an event must be associated in some empirical way with its effect, and (3) the cause of an event must be scrutinized in such a way that other possible causes have been nullified. Unless these three conditions have been satisfied beyond the shadow of doubt, under sustained attempts to falsify them, one can not infer causality. Applying these rigorous criteria to a common example of prejudice reveals the fallacy. For instance, people often say or think that blacks are better basketball players than whites-because of the physical traits inherited by blacks! (The astute reader will recall that this is precisely the kind of prejudiced thinking I discussed earlier in this essay.) One could superficially conclude via common sense that this observation about black athletics is so, without a careful scrutiny of the evidence needed to assert causality. Using common sense, it would appear on the surface that 26 black skin and excellent players are correlated. Next, it does seem that blacks have had a disproportionate advantage over whites for quite some time. (Unfortunately, for the prejudiced mind this has not always been true historically; such a finding makes satisfying the first criteria of causality a very dubious venture. At present, we will ignore this contradiction to continue the original argument.) However, have other potential causes, not based upon physical features, been effectively nullified? I suspect not! Could it not be that blacks on average spend more time playing basketball (due to limited alternatives) or play more rigorous levels of competition than white players on average? One would therefore expect that anyone who spends more time at a task or plays more challenging adversaries would excel over their competitors on average. Such an explanation does not conveniently use physique as a panacea to account for differences in athletic prowess. Might it also be conceivable that coaches selectively sponsor black basketball players more than whites, either because coaches feel sorry for them to the extent that they help blacks more frequently to develop their abilities or coaches downplay the merits of whites for stylistic reasons? Unless each and all of the alternatives I have cited, or other logical ones, have been refuted repeatedly by insurmountable evidence, one can not legitimately conclude that the common prejudicial explanation is plausible. Yet, 27 may prejudiced people champion this logical fallacy, applying it to intelligence tests, work performance, or sexual vices. Besides the rhetorical error of confusing correlational statements with causal ones, people commit attribution errors in public and private discourse. When discussing outsiders, one tends to explain their shortcomings in categorical terms; but when one's own or an ethnic acquaintance's foibles are articulated, the focus is on more universal, humane traits. For example, seeing from afar that students with dark skin were periodically late for a class, a person making an attribution error would conclude that these students were late because people from their ethnic group are always late. When faced with identical circumstances in which that same person was tardy, however, the excuse would be: I slept too late or I was delayed by traffic, human or otherwise! Attribution errors like this occur daily in speech and thought within all segments of society. To combat prejudice more efficaciously, these distortions must be shunned-along with slurs and vulgar jokes. Finally, and somewhat idealistically, we must limit or eradicate our tendency to visualize persons solely or conveniently in ethnic terms. More important than the existence of physical or cultural differences among people are the values we place on those differences. Prejudice teaches us to value particular human characteristics in a 28 certain way. You and I can teach ourselves to reject this! How? By realizing that a healthy human concept puts one at ease with people who are like us or those who are unlike us. It really makes little difference which is the case ultimately since the same disciplines of empathy are relevant to each, albeit with varying degrees of effort. In my odyssey in life, my liberation from prejudice has been aided by the endless possibilities of creative imagination as exemplified in biblical insights, sociological logic, mathematical thinking, and even the fantasies of "Star Trek." Altogether, these encounters have taught me to view human beings cosmically as life forms with multitudinous, yet uniquely patterned, characteristics. I commend these resources to the reader. Conclusion We must begin to think and act differently about prejudice, given its dire consequences. I personally advocate regarding prejudice as a form of mental illness requiring urgent treatment on a scale comparable to sexual or child abuse. Due to the demographics of the current population, however, I am not sanguine about this designation becoming a realistic prescription in the foreseeable future. In this essay, I have with brevity described the dangers of prejudice, how and why they have emerged, as well as what could be done in the mainstream of church and society to conquer prejudice. I wish I could be optimistic that sincere efforts to eliminate prejudice in 29 this nation were imminent; but, I see no evidence on the horizon that people in general or in the church are prepared to discard the ineffectual, yet palatable, strategies of this shortsighted generation. As the prophets of the Old Testament cried out to a deceived populace, so the clarion call against prejudice must be given to our epoch by those committed to the Kingdom of God. May you respond wisely to the call presented in this essay, thereby rescuing many from the plague of prejudice. Bibliography Allen, Henry. "Racial Minorities and Evangelical Colleges: Thoughts and Reflections of a Minority Social Scientist" and "Racial Minorities and Evangelical Colleges- Revisited." Faculty Dialogue 4 (Fall 1985), pp. 65-78. Banton, Michael and Harwood, Johathan. The Race Concept. New York: Praeger, 1975. Banton, Michael. Racial and Ethnic Competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. ________. Racial Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Blalock, Hubert M. Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations. New York: Wiley, 1967. ________. Black-White Relations in the 1980s. New York: Praeger, 1979. 30 ________. Race and Ethnic Relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982. ________. Power and Conflict. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989. Farley, Reynolds and Allen, Walter. The Color Line and the Quality of Life in America. New York: Russell-Sage, 1987. Feagin, Joe R. Racial and Ethnic Relations, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984. Jordan, Winthrop. The White Man's Burden. London: Oxford University Press, 1974. Rose, Peter. The Subject is Race. New York: Oxford, 1968. Snowden, Frank M., Jr. Before Color Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983. vanDijk, Teun. Communicating Racism. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1987. Wilson, William Julius. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. 31